Glenn Goss
With genetic engineering becoming more prominent in this century, where does religion stand? This question can be answered using the stem cell research scenario. Should stem cell research be allowed? Is it ethical? These are questions asked by political officials and religious leaders throughout the world. It is my understanding that stem cells do not only have to be taken from embryos; there are alternate sources. When stem cells are taken from embryos, the embryo must be terminated. This embryo may only be in the early stages of development, but it will still eventually turn into a human being. Basically, the proposition is made that stem cells will be taken for research by killing innocent lives. Even if everything that is heard about stem cell research is true, lives are being exchanged. The embryo is terminated and it's cells are used to cure someone else's disease. Using the alternative sources for stem cells will eliminate this controversy. Scientists will be permitted to continue their research with little consequence. Also, most Christians and others originally opposed to this technology will be liberated.
With stem cells taken from sources other than embryos, the battle of ethics between the world of science and the theologists may be a bit brighter than it once seemed. Religious leaders and scientists could possibly reach a happy medium. Genetic engineering could be used in a responsible manner, providing care to many people throughout the world. The key word is responsible. Scientists cannot get carried away. Obtain stem cells without killing innocent embryos that will one day be living beings, and use these cells reasonably. We do not need a perfect, genetically impervious population. We only need ways to alleviate the diseases and ailments in which we suffer. It is not necessary to "play God". If scientists were to play God, then what would we need God for? Someday science and religion will be able to compromise in an ethical manner.
Works Cited
Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
4 comments:
Reading this paper, you can definitely get a sense of your stand on the subject. When you mention alternate ways to get stem cells instead of embryos, what are they. It would be beneficial to the paper to add some of the alternate options. Also, I think it would help if you added how political and religious leaders feel about these options, or would they be completely opposed to genetic research altogether. Elaborating on some of the points would bring a bit more understanding to the paper.
"WHO PLAYS GOD IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?" was the headline splayed across the top third of a full-page advertisement in the New York Times in a huge 130-point font, as if God himself were the author of the message that appeared on October 11, 1999 (Joy 287). This statement made by Lee M. Silver in his book Challenging Nature is, in my mind, the major problem with modern biotechnology and genetic engineering. No human being should have the ability to control or alter God's work. "Playing God" essentially insinuates that God is thrown out the window and is no longer needed. For those of us with religious beliefs, it is universally accepted that God is our creator; He is the one who instils life in each and every one of us. Genetically engineering ideal humans would go against everything that Christians stand for. It never was and never will be necessary to engineer an ideal people. God makes us who we are for a reason. The only circumstances in which humans should be altered genetically are instances that could be beneficial. An example of this would be using stem cells to grow a new liver for a person who is terminally ill. We should limit our genetics research to providing cures for diseases that are currently incurable. Using this potentially useful technology for useless things, such as engineering an ideal human population, is down right ludicrous.
With genetic engineering becoming more prominent in this century, where does religion stand? This question can be answered using the stem cell research scenario. Should stem cell research be allowed? Is it ethical? These are questions asked by political officials and religious leaders throughout the world. It is my understanding that stem cells do not only have to be taken from embryos; there are alternate sources. When stem cells are taken from embryos, the embryo must be terminated. This embryo may only be in the early stages of development, but it will still eventually turn into a human being. Basically, the proposition is made that stem cells will be taken for research by killing innocent lives. Even if everything that is heard about stem cell research is true, lives are being exchanged. The embryo is terminated and it's cells are used to cure someone else's disease. Using the alternative sources for stem cells will eliminate this controversy. Scientists will be permitted to continue their research with little consequence. Also, most Christians and others originally opposed to this technology will be liberated.
There are two main types of stem cells. These are embryonic and adult stem cells. As discussed, acquiring embryonic stem cells requires that the embryo be eliminated. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are present in certain tissues of adults; among these are brain, bone marrow, peripheral blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscle, skin and liver. Harvesting these cells would obviously not involve the killing of life. They are also undifferentiated, meaning they have the capacity to be cultured and grow into cells of other types. Therefore, an adult stem cell could be obtained from epithelial tissue, cultured in a lab, and grown into cardiac tissue. Scientists are currently working on ways to obtain, identify, and differentiate these cells. The reason embryonic stem cells are favored is because they are pluripotent. Since they come from an embryo, they can become any type human cell. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are not pluripotent. They vary in what type of cell they can generate. They day is coming when scientists can take an adult stem cell and turn it into any kind of body cell.
Various religious and political leaders have supported and refuted stem cell research and usage. The Catholic church actually supports ethically responsible research, while opposing any research that exploits or destroys human embryos. This basically means they support adult stem cell research but oppose embryonic stem cell research. Most all other branches of Christianity oppose embryonic stem cell research. Other religions support some aspects of this research, but refute other aspects. Many political leaders base their views of stem cell research on their religious beliefs. George W. Bush, during his presidency, vetoed a bill that supported the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. President Obama is currently working on lifting the eight year ban on stem cell research imposed by Bush. A positive note regarding this is that the bill will require researchers to try to use embryonic stem cells from previously existing lines, as opposed to harvesting them by terminating the embryo. It is thought that within 10 years, embryonic stem cells will not be needed; adult stem cells will be the only ones used. This should eventually put an end to many diseases and the battle between science and religion.
With stem cells taken from sources other than embryos, the battle of ethics between the world of science and the theologists may be a bit brighter than it once seemed. Religious leaders and scientists could possibly reach a happy medium. Stem cell research will involve using non terminated embryonic cells and adult stem cells. Genetic engineering could be used in a responsible manner, providing care to many people throughout the world. The key word is responsible. Scientists cannot get carried away. Obtain stem cells without killing innocent embryos that will one day be living beings, and use these cells reasonably. We do not need a perfect, genetically impervious population. We only need ways to alleviate the diseases and ailments in which we suffer. It is not necessary to "play God". If scientists were to play God, then what would we need God for? Someday in the near future science and religion will be able to compromise in an ethical manner.
works cited:
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
www.stemcells.nih.gov
www.pewforum.org
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE51E15B20090215
Phil - Elaborate what points, how? This isn't a generic and unhelpful response, which anyone could have written in five minutes.
Glenn - Look at this section of the first paragraph: "The only circumstances in which humans should be altered genetically are instances that could be beneficial. An example of this would be using stem cells to grow a new liver for a person who is terminally ill. We should limit our genetics research to providing cures for diseases that are currently incurable. Using this potentially useful technology for useless things, such as engineering an ideal human population, is down right ludicrous." The first sentence, Silver would agree with - he thinks the same. Then, granted, you try to define "beneficial" as helping to cure currently incurable diseases. Then you have a bizarre sentence when you try to claim that "engineering an ideal human population" would be useless. Huh? It may very well be wrong or stupid, but by definition an ideal population would be useful, right? You aren't showing much focus or control over your language here.
In the next three paragraphs, you offer a conventional and pointless summary of the current political situation, explaining things that all of us (especially as readers of Silver) really ought to know - all without any citations, incidentally. I don't see how any of this advances any particular argument.
The last paragraph is little more than a series of conventional generalizations. You claim that we can find a happy medium. What is it? You claim that we shouldn't play God - but never define what that would mean (some, after all, would define any genetic research as playing with God).
At the end, I'm not entirely sure what prompt you're responding to, I don't see what is in any way distinctive or interesting about your argument, I have no idea *why* I'm supposed to accept your views, and I don't see how you are making use of Silver, or any other source.
Post a Comment